In the long-running debate on the proper role of government in American life, Esman (international studies, Cornell) enters his arguments that the nation suffers from too little rather than too much government. Labeling his position "progressive" rather than liberal, he sets forth the platform that in a state whose powers are limited, and in which economic activity is reserved to private enterprise and voluntary associations that meet a wide variety of citizen needs, an active government is still essential. He posits a public interest that embraces all sectors of society, which requires certain services and regulations for its advancement from managing the national economy to protecting vulnerable citizens from exploitation by the powerful. He contrasts his position, quite naturally, with the Republican Right's distrust of government in nearly all of its manifestations. His argument for progressive renewal is clearly stated, with specific policy choices such as an internationalist foreign policy and vigorous environmental protection. It would be useful to portray the liberal side of the debate in courses on US political ideology and should invite responses by both those who think alike and differently. Recommended for general readers and undergraduate students. W. C. Johnson; Bethel College (MN)

The new millennium--and an impending election--inspire studies of how government works (and doesn't work!). Conservatives' three-decades-long assault on the federal government must end, Cornell's Esman argues; he offers progressives "rationale, a set of policies, and a political strategy for restoring necessary balance to public discourse and political action." Like Garry Wills' Necessary Evil [BKL Ag 99]), Esman holds that the vital role of active government in American democracy is as authentic a tradition as the mistrust of government championed by the right. The nation's ideal, he urges, has always been to be an "improving society." Esman spells out how progressives can convince their fellow citizens that government has an essential role to play in improvement. In Democracy Derailed [BKL Mr 15 00], David Broder, Washington Post syndicated columnist, argued that increased referendum activity across the country is shifting power from legislators to wealthy individuals and interest groups who fund these campaigns. Jacobs and Shapiro (political scientists at the University of Minnesota and Columbia University respectively) may explain the referendum's appeal. Their research indicates that, except for just before an election, politicians don't pander to public opinion. Yes, politicians are attentive to polls, but, Jacobs and Shapiro argue, politicians use polls to figure out how to sell the public on programs that they (or their core supporters) want for ideological or self-interested reasons. The authors feel that politicians should pander more (i.e., be more responsive to the broader public); they propose campaign finance reform plus shifts in communications approaches to encourage such accountability. --Mary Carroll